Re: please read before our meeting...

While ‘known/unknown’ appear weak as names, I really really liked 
the idea that an AT considers an extra “intent concept/property 
dictionary” as a declarative way to indicate what extra language or 
specific culture they consider. This is a first and very basic step 
towards context-specific-pronunciation. Maybe 
‘considered/not-considered’, or ‘in-scope/out-of-scope’ ?

Btw, the text I read used “AT” without a determinant (“An 
AT”/“The AT”). That sounded very odd as language for me (I hear 
this from particular immigrants here ;-)). That was just a speedy 
writing effect, right?

Paul




On 24 Oct 2024, at 16:49, Neil Soiffer wrote:

> I mostly agree with Bruce's suggestions. Here's my take:
>
> 5.1: I think known/unknown concepts should be dropped and text added 
> along
> the lines of "See 5.2 for more information about how concepts are 
> used".
>
> 5.2: I think the flow is:
> 1. Define the Core concept list followed by the open concept list.
> 2. Define the Intent Concept Dictionary (should use core, may use 
> open, may
> have other entries)
> 3. Describe when an intent matches an entry in the dictionary and 
> define
> known and unknown concepts.
> 4. Describe what AT should do when there is a match and when there 
> isn't a
> match.
>
> 5.3: Should continue to be about properties and include what is in 5.4
> (what to do if only properties are given)
>
> I'm not sure about "5.4 (New!) How to apply Concept & Property Hints". 
> That
> is sort of what is in '5.7 Intent Examples". That section is 
> non-normative
> (do we need to state that?) and maybe that is different from what 
> Bruce is
> suggesting.
>
>     Neil
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 12:04 PM Bruce Miller 
> <bruce.miller@nist.gov> wrote:
>
>> Hello again;
>>
>>    So, my biggest problem with this section is that it tends to be 
>> too
>> distributed; as you keep reading, you keep accumulating 
>> clarifications,
>> corrections, nuance, so that you don't really know what eg. "known" 
>> is,
>> or how to use it, or if it's even consistent, until you get to the 
>> end &
>> you've assembled all the pieces.  This may make it nice to read as
>> literature, but hard to use as a specification.
>>
>> My suggestions (with lots of hand-waving):
>>
>> 5.1 Grammar for intent: should focus on the grammar and it's
>> terminology, but not get into how it's used.  So under the "concept"
>> item, everything after "A known concept..." should be pushed back to
>> 5.2. OR at most replaced by "A concept may be known or not, see 5.2".
>>
>> 5.2 Intent Concept Dictionaries: should focus on describing the
>> dictionaries, and how concepts are matched (and thus should define
>> Known/Unknown), but still should defer how the entries are used. So,
>> under item Core, all but the 1st paragraph should be pushed back to 
>> (a
>> new) 5.4.
>>
>> 5.4 Intent Self References: doesn't seem to warrant it's own section.
>> Can't it be stated in 5.3 that a property can stand alone, w/o a 
>> concept?
>>
>> 5.4 (New!) How to apply Concept & Property Hints: This should collect 
>> in
>> one place how known concepts, unknown concepts, literals,  might be
>> spoken, with whatever level of compulsion, and how properties may or 
>> may
>> not modify them.  If we have it in one place, any contradictions may 
>> be
>> easier to detect :>
>>
>> Aside: I have a tendency to think of "Concept" and "Property" as
>> corresponding to "What" and "How", but this projection isn't 
>> completely
>> consistent with all our use cases, or terminology. Should it be? I
>> dunno, but at least that may explain some of my prejudices :>
>>
>> bruce
>>